This judgment addresses a bail application by an accused in a narcotics case involving 15 kg of ganja. The High Court rejected the bail plea, rejecting medical grounds and noting the initiation of trial, while directing speedy trial proceedings.
Prayer for bail rejected; case returned to Special Court for expeditious trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010194002021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3283/2021
RAVINDRA SINGH S/O LATE SITARAM SINGH R/O VILL- KANAI P.S. CHARPOKHRI DIST. BHOJPUR, BIHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 16-12-2021
Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.
2 . By this application filed under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure,
Page No.# 2/8
1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’, for short], the accused-petitioner viz. Ravindra Singh has prayed for his release on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 40/2021 [GR Case no. 264/2021], arising out of Khatkhati Police Station Case no. 98/2021, originally registered for offences punishable under Sections 20[b] [ii][B]/24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985.
3 . Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner is suffering from scrotal swelling and he has been advised to undergo some advanced medical treatment. To buttress his submission, he has referred to a health status report [Annexure-F] dated 03.11.2021 issued by the Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer, Diphu. It is his further submission that the quantity allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner is lesser than the commercial quantity and, as such, the restrictions embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would not be attracted for consideration of the prayer for bail in respect of the accused-petitioner.
4 . Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed to the prayer for bail on the grounds that the contraband substance recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner was Cannabis [Ganja] and the weight was 15 Kg. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner is a resident of Bihar and in the event of granting bail there is every possibility that the accused-petitioner may jump the bail and evade the ensuing trial.
5 . The scanned copies of the case diary and the status report along with the case record of NDPS Case no. 40/2021 [G.R. Case no. 264/2021], as requisitioned by order dated 22.11.2021, have been received from the Court of
Page No.# 3/8
learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong at Diphu.
6 . I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials in the case record of NDPS Case no. 40/2021 and the case diary.
7 . The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Khatkhati Police Station, on 11.06.2021. Vide General Diary Entry no. 335 dated 11.06.2021, a Naka checking at a place near Khatkhati State Bank of India on the National Highway no. 39 was posted by deputing a number of police personnel. At about 11-00 p.m. during the course of the said Naka checking., the informant signaled one auto rickshaw bearing registration no. AS-09/AC-2830 [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short] to stop while it was coming from Dimapur side towards Bokakhat side through the National Highway. On being so signaled, the driver of the subject-vehicle stopped the subject-vehicle at the Naka checking point. There was one passenger inside the subject-vehicle apart from the driver. The accused-petitioner as the lone passenger was inside the subject-vehicle. When the accused-petitioner was asked to produce his service identity card, he failed to produce the same. The accused-petitioner was found carrying two bags with him. On suspicion, the said two travel bags were searched by the informant in presence of 4 [four] independent witnesses. During the search, 1 [one] black colour polythene wrapping packet containing suspected Cannabis [Ganja] was found from inside one of the two travel bags. The accused-petitioner was also found carrying a VIP suitcase. When the said VIP suit case was searched, 1 [one] black colour polythene wrapping packet and 2 [two] golden yellow color polythene wrapping packets containing suspected
Page No.# 4/8
Cannabis [Ganja] were recovered. The packets containing suspected Cannabis [Ganja] were weighed with the help of a digital weighing scale. On weighment, the total quantity was found to be 15 Kg. The accused-petitioner was accordingly arrested and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate [M], Bokajan on 12.06.2021. Since 12.06.2021, the accused-petitioner is in custody.
8 . The Investigating Officer of the case after completing the investigation in connection with Khatkhati Police Station Case no. 98/2021, had submitted a charge sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge Sheet no. 83/2021 dated 31.07.2021 finding a prima facie case under Section 20[ii][B]/24 of the NDPS Act. A number of documents were also forwarded along with the said charge sheet.
9 . From the materials in the case records, it is found that the entire quantity of seized suspected contraband substance was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokajan on 12.06.2021 and 2 [two] samples were drawn in presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the same were sealed.
As per the test memo of the Seizing Officer, 4 [four] packets of suspected Cannabis [Ganja], 2 [two] nos. of packets wrapped in black polythene and 2 [two] nos. of packets wrapped with golden yellow polythene weighing 15.31 Kg were seized. 2 [two] nos. of sample packets, identified as ‘Sample-1’ and ‘Sample-2’ were drawn. The Sample-1 was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL], Assam, Guwahati for chemical examination and as per the Report dated 05.07.2021 of the FSL, the sample gave positive test for Cannabis
Page No.# 5/8
[Ganja].
10 . The Investigating Officer of the case recorded statements of a number of witnesses including the seizure witnesses and the driver of the subject-vehicle [auto rickshaw]. The statements of those witnesses have corroborated the version presented in the FIR. Evidently, the contraband is Cannabis [Ganja] and the a quantity weighing 15.310 Kgs, recovered and seized from the bags carried by the accused-petitioner. Evidently, the accused-petitioner hails from the district – Bhojpur, Bihar. The accused-petitioner, a resident of Bhojpur district of Bihar, has failed to account for his presence at the place of incident on 11.06.2021. The petitioner has not been able to disclose anything about his occupation and/or profession in the bail application and has not explained as to why he was found travelling from Dimapur side towards Khatkhati side on the date of the incident carrying packets containing contraband like Cannabis [Ganja] on the date of the incident at a far-off place from his native State of Bihar.
11 . The offences with which the accused-petitioner is charged are serious in nature as the allegations against him are commission of offences under Section 20[ii][B] and Section 24 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The learned trial Court has already framed charges against the accused-petitioner for the said offences by an order dated 31.08.2021. The offence under Section 20[b][ii][B], NDPS Act, 1985 is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. In case of serious nature, the mere fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody for a long period, in this case since 12.06.2021, may not be the reason for consideration. It has been observed in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala
Page No.# 6/8
vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775, and Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 that the period of incarceration by itself could not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, it has been observed that in case of undertrials, their liberty is a relevant consideration but it is equally important to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck.
12 . It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. It is no doubt true that while considering an application for bail the aspect of personal liberty of the accused is also to be considered. But at the same time, the interest of free and fair trial of the case, more particularly, when it pertains to an offence of heinous nature is also to be looked into. The discretion vested in the Court for grant of bail or otherwise has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
13 . In the trial, the charges against the accused-petitioner have already been
Page No.# 7/8
framed and it transpires that the case was posted for evidence on 14.12.2021. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
14 . In so far as the status of health of the accused-petitioner is concerned, this Court by order dated 22.11.2021, had also called for report as regards the treatment of the accused-petitioner. As per the medical report dated 08.12.2021, furnished by the Superintendent, Diphu Medical College & Hospital, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, the accused-petitioner as an jail inmate was taken to the Diphu Medical College & Hospital on 5 [five] dates – 21.10.2021, 26.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 02.11.2021 and 12.11.2021 – a number of medical investigation was carried out. As per the final diagnosis, the accused-petitioner has scrotal wall cellulitis with bilateral funiculitis with hepatomegaly with grade II fatty liver and as per the said report, the condition of the accused-petitioner has made from before. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner as regards deteriorating health condition of the accused-petitioner does not appear to be of any force.
15 . Considering all those above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer for bail of the accused-petitioner, at this stage of the trial, cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the accused-petitioner is rejected. Considering the fact that the accused-petitioner is in incarceration since 12.06.2021, it is expected that the learned Special Court, Karbi Anglong, Diphu will make the necessary endeavour to complete the trial in an expeditious manner.
16 . It is also made clear that the observation made herein are only for the
Page No.# 8/8
purpose of considering the prayer for bail of the accused-petitioner and the same shall not have any effect in the course of the ensuing trial. It is also observed that the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong shall pass appropriate order as and when the accused-petitioner is required to be provided medical treatment and if required, for his treatment at Diphu Medical College and Hospital and or any other medical institute or hospital.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner in a serious narcotics case where the trial stage has commenced.
Whether adverse health conditions of the accused are sufficient grounds to grant bail in an NDPS felony case.
Whether the quantity of contraband recovered attracts the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of GujaratReferred¶33
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan SinghReferred¶33
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶33
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravindra Singh
State of Assam
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
